Category Archives: Muslim loyalty

Post navigation

This year’s issue of The Muslim 500 names Sheikh Hamza Yusuf as the most influential Muslim-American. He is often portrayed as a moderate, but he recently endorsed Sharia governance and heads an Islamist college in California with extremist faculty.

Yusuf is ranked as the 35th most influential Muslim in the world by the publication. He is described as the “leading Islamic authority” in America. He is the current president and a senior faculty member of Zaytuna College in California.

He and 17 other Muslim-American leaders signed a lettercondemning the tactics of the Islamic State terrorist group and offering theological rebuttals. It is a letter that earned them tremendous positive publicity by news outlets that didn’t notice that the letter endorsed the resurrection of the Caliphate and Sharia governance, specifically its brutal hudud punishments.

“Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qu’ran and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law,” point 16 of the letter states.

It also used vague language that could justify other acts of terrorism, such as attacks by Hamas on Israel. The condemnation of the Islamic State’s targeting of American journalists contains an exception that approves of jihad against reporters they view as dishonest.

In a interview, Yusuf mourned “what happened in the 19th century with the abdication of Islamic Law and the usurpation of its place by Western legal systems.” He also accused the U.S. of trying to “unite the world” and criticized the “dominant world order, which is a capitalistic, Western world order.”

“[America] is a country that has little to be proud of in its past and less to be proud of in the present. I am a citizen of this country not by choice but by birth. I reside in this country not by choice but by conviction in attempting to spread the message of Islam in this country. I became Muslim in part because I did not believe the false gods of this society, whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights.”

Over the weekend, former President Jimmy Carter attended the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference in Detroit. There, he assured Muslims that the “principles of Allah” were designed to “bring peace and justice to all.” ISNA’s ties to terror-supporters are quite deep.

But Carter isn’t alone. For years, American leaders have lectured Muslims on the nature of Islam, in the fruitless hope that pooh-poohing Islamic extremism as a fringe element will somehow convince Muslims all over the world that America is more of a friend to them than Islamic radicals are. This week, Barack Obama said, “ISIL speaks for no religion” — which comes a shock to those who live in the world of reality, given that ISIL certainly speaks for a certain segment of a religion. Eric Holder has said that radical Islam is not consistent with the teachings of Islam. For years, George W. Bush assured Americans that Islamic extremists represented but a tiny minority of Muslims. Hillary Clinton wrote in her new memoir Hard Choices that “Not all Islamists are alike…it is in America’s interest to encourage all religiously based political parties and leaders to embrace inclusive democracy and reject violence.”

This may be true. Or it may not be true. What is certainly true is that American politicians, mostly Christian or atheist, know less about the nature of Islam and Islamic radicalism than members of ISIS. To suggest that a cursory examination of platitudes about the Koran provides enough knowledge to spout paternalistic expertise about the religion is insulting to Muslims of all stripes.

Here’s what we do know: the polls show that Islamic extremism is on the rise. That’s not because it’s a fringe element. It’s because the West has swallowed multiculturalism wholesale, to the point where it’s politically unpalatable to condemn Islamic extremism for the mass rape of children.

So, here is the evidence that the enemy we face is not a “tiny minority” of Muslims, let alone a rootless philosophy unconnected to Islam entirely. It’s not just the thousands of westerners now attempting to join ISIS. It’s millions of Muslims who support their general goals, even if they don’t support the group itself.

France. A new, widely-covered poll shows that a full 16% of French people have positive attitudes toward ISIS. That includes 27% of French between the ages of 18-24. Anne-Elizabeth Moutet of Newsweek wrote, “This is the ideology of young French Muslims from immigrant backgrounds…these are the same people who torch synagogues.”

Britain. In 2006, a poll for the Sunday Telegraphfound that 40% of British Muslims wanted shariah law in the United Kingdom, and that 20% backed the 7/7 bombers. Another poll from that year showed that 45% of British Muslims said that 9/11 was an American/Israeli conspiracy; that poll showed that one-quarter of British Muslims believed that the 7/7 bombings were justified.

Palestinian Areas. A poll in 2011 showed that 32% of Palestinians supported the brutal murder of five Israeli family members, including a three-month-old baby. In 2009, a poll showed that 78% of Palestinians had positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden. A 2013 poll showed 40% of Palestinians supporting suicide bombings and attacks against civilians. 89% favored sharia law. Currently, 89% of Palestinians support terror attacks on Israel.

Pakistan. After the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Gilani Foundation did a poll of Pakistanis and found that 51% of them grieved for the terrorist mastermind, with 44% of them stating that he was a martyr. In 2009, 26% of Pakistanis approved of attacks on US troops in Iraq. That number was 29% for troops in Afghanistan. Overall, 76% of Pakistanis wanted strict shariah law in every Islamic country.

Morocco. A 2009 poll showed that 68% of Moroccans approved of terrorist attacks on US troops in Iraq; 61% backed attacks on American troops in Afghanistan as of 2006. 76% said they wanted strict sharia law in every Islamic country.

Jordan. 72% of Jordanians backed terror attacks against US troops in Iraq as of 2009. In 2010, the terrorist group Hezbollah had a 55% approval rating; Hamas had a 60% approval rating.

Indonesia: In 2009, a poll demonstrated that 26% of Indonesians approved of attacks on US troops in Iraq; 22% backed attacks on American troops in Afghanistan. 65% said they agreed with Al Qaeda on pushing US troops out of the Middle East. 49% said they supported strict sharia law in every Islamic country. 70% of Indonesians blamed 9/11 on the United States, Israel, someone else, or didn’t know. Just 30% said Al Qaeda was responsible.

Egypt. As of 2009, 87% of Egyptians said they agreed with the goals of Al Qaeda in forcing the US to withdraw forces from the Middle East. 65% said they wanted strict sharia law in every Islamic country. As of that same date, 69% of Egyptians said they had either positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden. In 2010, 95% of Egyptians said it was good that Islam is playing a major role in politics.

United States. A 2013 poll from Pew showed that 13% of American Muslims said that violence against civilians is often, sometimes or rarely justified to defend Islam. A 2011 poll from Pew showed that 21 percent of Muslims are concerned about extremism among Muslim Americans. 19 percent of American Muslims as of 2011 said they were either favorable toward Al Qaeda or didn’t know.

In short, tens of millions of Muslims all over the world sympathize with the goals or tactics of terrorist groups – or both. That support is stronger outside the West, but it is present even in the West. Islamist extremism is not a passing or fading phenomenon – it is shockingly consistent over time. And the West’s attempts to brush off the ideology of fanaticism has been an overwhelming failure.

Most noticeable was that the protests across Western European cities have overwhelmingly been led by Muslims — not Islamists — just normal, “integrated” Muslims, who stay at home when any other war occurs. (Where were their protests against Qatar for funding Hamas?)

What is harder for people to address is the lies that feed this violence.

These otherwise “integrated” people hate Israel and Jews because they have beentaught to. A whole generation — perhaps several — has been taught to hate. That is a lot of hate, but it needs to be tackled.

The best place to start might be by tackling the lies and defamations that are allowed to go on underneath everyone’s noses, such as the frivolous — and false — accusations of Israeli “genocide,” “war-crimes” and the like. The problem is worse than anyone had thought.

The Gaza War has had disturbing fallout in Europe. The Gaza War has produced flagrantly anti-Semitic protests, attacks on Jews and the burning down of Jewish buildings. Those protests have come as a surprise to parts of the European public – nowhere more so than in Germany, where a hatred thought to have been disgraced for all time has found its way back onto European streets under a new guise.

As well as being a time for outrage, this also ought to be a time for re-thinking. And some of that rethinking will have to be done by those who assumed they best understood these outbursts. Certainly calls to “kill the Jews” in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy are a part of the problem, but these, as well as the outbreaks of violence against Jews across Europe, are condemned by politicians and journalists alike. To some extent it is too easy for them to do so. There is not yet any real political or other price to pay for saying that you think people should beat up rabbis in the street, send “Jews to the gas” or call openly for genocide. What is harder for people to do is address the lies that feed this violence, and the underlying hatred that the Gaza War revealed. These need attention.

Groups in Europe that monitor anti-Semitic hate crimes have, for many years, been ahead of the public curve in understanding that these attacks are no longer carried out by white, neo-Nazi, skinhead thugs. Although such people do exist, they are small in number and shunned by the wider society. The discovery that anti-Semitism today is spurred by Muslims and (to a lesser extent) misinformed fellow-travellers has been recognized by people who work in the field, but has taken a long time to trickle down to public awareness.

This latest round of events in the Gaza, however, and the response to it on European streets, have thrown some of those experts. It turns out that a very major part of their analysis might be wrong. It seems to have been the assumption of many involved in trying to prevent anti-Semitism in Europe that the problem of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activism could be put down, among the Muslim communities, to a minority of radicalized people called “Islamists.” These were recognized to be the sort involved in extremist groups, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir or similar groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood and its various Western front-groups. They were expected to be individuals who are highly politically and religiously motivated — very possibly the same people who attend protests against American or any other Western military engagements in the world. But now, since Gaza, a terrible realization has begun to strike: that analysts may have been focussing on the tip of the iceberg while ignoring the vast immensities beneath.

Most noticeable was that the protests across Western European cities have overwhelmingly been led by Muslims. Not Islamists or Islamist groups in particular, but by extremely angry Muslims – especially young Muslims – who stay at home when any other war occurs anywhere in the world, but who seem spurred to anger whenever Israel is involved in any conflict with any of its neighbors. The crowds appear deaf to the reasonable charge that they are singling Israel out for special treatment. They are unwilling to consider that they are perpetrating a grotesque double-standard (where were their protests against Qatar for funding Hamas? ). But they otherwise seem like normal, “integrated”, Muslims.

There are examples that might, at first, even seem frivolous. The British boy band, One Direction, for instance, has five members. One of its members, Zayn Malik, happens to be a Muslim. When the Gaza war began, it was Zayn Malik alone, out of all five members of One Direction, who started tweeting hashtags to do with “FreePalestine.” They caused a media storm. The singers in One Direction are not generally known for their interest in geo-strategic issues. Is it coincidence that it was Malik and not any of his bandmates who felt compelled to weigh in on the side of the government in Gaza, led by the terrorist group Hamas, rather than on the side of the open, democratic nation-state of Israel? Whatever the cause, it has an effect. Malik has 13 million Twitter followers. That is more followers than there are people in Belgium, and twice as many as live in Switzerland. Malik’s tweet has been re-tweeted and favorited over 300,000 times to date.

The “FreePalestine” tweet from Zayn Malik, of the boy-band One Direction, caused a media storm. (Image source: Mailk – DeviantART/pawa24)

Or consider the only Muslim in the British cabinet. Just as Israeli ground forces were withdrawing from Gaza, Sayeeda Warsi resigned in protest, stating that the British government has been too “uncritical” of the Israeli government. She claimed that the British government had shown an unwillingness to condemn Israel for defending its citizens. That this UK cabinet “support” included accusations (albeit, under international law, inaccurate accusations) of “disproportionality” as well as an official call to reconsider all arms sales contracts to Israel, is something Warsi seems to have overlooked. She simply claimed that her “conscience” prevented her from remaining silent on the situation in Gaza any longer, and that she believed that the Israelis should be investigated for “war crimes” — also, under international law, no more than Hamas’s double war crime of both shooting at civilians and hiding behind civilians. And that does not even include mentioning that the civilians Hamas hid behind were their own Palestinian subjects.

A number of Muslims are expressing their appreciation for U.S. soldiers and their outrage over comments made by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) officials questioning whether to honor U.S. troops who gave their lives in wars they oppose. CAIR officials frequently depict American soldiers as murderers, imperialists and abusers of Muslims.

The comments by CAIR officials prompted several Bosnian Muslims to thank U.S. soldiers for their sacrifices, with one explicitly saying that CAIR does not speak for them:

In addition, a number of Muslim human rights activists responded in statements to the Clarion Project:

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy:

“The real truth that CAIR and their Islamist colleagues at the Organization of the Islamic Conference hypocritically ignore is that our American sons and daughters in the military have sacrificed more to liberate free-thinking Muslims from the shackles of real oppression in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq than any other nation, especially Muslim-majority countries.

“The Nidal Hasans and Nasser Abdos of the world are natural byproducts of the deep anti-American mindset of Islamist groups like CAIR who incessantly demonize the American soldier and all America stands for in order to present Islamism as the alternative.

“Look no further than their name: CAIR views America and Islam as having ‘relations’ like two different entities rater than as ‘one nation under God.’

“Thousands of Muslims serve and have served America with distinction in spite of CAIR’s attempts to convince them otherwise.”

Virtually all Americans come together on Memorial Day to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for the country’s freedom and safety. Two Council on American-Islamic Relations’ officials spent the holiday weekend differently: Questioning whether U.S. troops deserve to be honored and tweeting that the country was “established upon white supremacy.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing trial, disingenuously claims that it is a moderate organization.

Yet, on May 23, Zahra Billoo, the radical executive-director of CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area chapter, tweeted that she “struggles with Memorial Day each year” about whether to honor American soldiers who died in wars:

She also quoted another CAIR official, Dawud Walid, the executive-director of CAIR’s Michigan chapter, as questioning whether they should honor American soldiers that died in “unjust” wars and occupations.

That’s a direct insult to American soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan and those that have returned from Iraq, as CAIR officials consistently describe those wars with that terminology. Billoo quoted Walid as saying:

Billoo did, however, find one “soldier” she felt comfortably honoring. On May 26, she promoted an article from the anti-Semitic and anti-American Nation of Islam that asked for help for a “black liberation soldier” named Imam Jamil al-Amin:

Al-Amin was a member of the Black Panthers terrorist group and was convicted of murdering a police officer in 2000. He is also anti-American, stating “if America doesn’t come around, we’re gonna burn it down,” and “I say violence is necessary. It is as American as cherry pie.”

Al-Amin also said, “When we begin to look critically at the Constitution of the United States . . . we see that in its main essence it is diametrically opposed to what Allah has commanded.”

“It is plain to see, however, that they [the CAIR officials] have nothing but disdain for our armed forces. We do hope that Muslim members of the U.S. military realize that CAIR sees you as ‘occupiers,’ not patriots protecting the freest nation on earth,” the group said.

CAIR keeps Billoo as a chapter leader and one of its more high-profile spokespersons despite her record of extremism. She supports the elimination of the state of Israel, justifies the terrorism of Hamas and characterizes the U.S. military and FBI as oppressors and murderers.

On the anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, she claimed that the military “kicked off the murder of thousands.” When a white Muslim convert was arrested for planning to join an Al-Qaeda-type terrorist group in Syria, she called it a “FBI terror plot.” A main Islamist theme is that incidents of homegrown terrorism are manufactured by the U.S. government.

The tweets are seen below:

CAIR’s teaching that the U.S. military is an “occupying army” that Muslims should be “rescued” from serving in is especially dangerous because mainstream Islamic scholars preach that occupiers are legitimate targets for jihad.

“Caving to pressure from Muslim groups, the Pentagon has relaxed uniform rules to allow Islamic beards, turbans and hijabs. It’s a major win for political correctness and a big loss for military unit cohesion,” said a recent report.

This new relaxation of rules for Muslims comes at a time when the FBI is tracking more than 100 suspected jihadi-infiltrators of the U.S. military. Just last month, Craig Benedict Baxam, a former Army soldier and convert to Islam, was sentenced to seven years in prison due to his al-Qaeda/jihadi activities. Also last month, Mozaffar Khazaee, an Iranian-American working for the Defense Department, was arrested for sending secret documents to America’s enemy, Iran.

According to a Pentagon spokesperson, the new religious accommodations—to allow Islamic beards, turbans, and hijabs—which took effect very recently, would “reduce both the instances and perception of discrimination among those whose religious expressions are less familiar to the command.”

The report concludes that, “Making special accommodations for Islam will only attract more Muslims into the military at a time when two recent terror cases highlight the ongoing danger of Muslims in uniform.”

But it’s worse than that; for not only will it attract “more Muslims,” it will attract precisely the wrong kinds of Muslims, AKA, “Islamists,” “radicals,” etc.

This is easily demonstrated by connecting the dots and understanding that Muslims who adhere to visible, non-problematic aspects of Islam—growing beards and donning hijabs—often indicate their adherence to non-visible, problematic aspects of Islam.

Consider it this way: Why do some Muslim men wear the prescribed beard and why do some Muslim women wear the prescribed hijab? Most Muslims would say they do so because Islam’s prophet Muhammad commanded them to (whether via the Koran or Hadith).

Regarding the Muslim beard, Muhammad wanted his followers to look different from “infidels,” namely Christians and Jews, so he ordered his followers to “trim closely the moustache and grow the beard.” Accordingly, all Sunni schools of law maintain that it is forbidden—a “major sin”—for men to shave their beards (unless, of course, it is part of a stratagem against the infidel, in which case it is permissible).

The question begs itself: If such Muslims meticulously follow the minor, “outer” things of Islam simply because their prophet made some utterances concerning them in the Hadith, logically speaking, does that not indicate that they also follow, or at the very least accept as legitimate, the major, “inner” themes Muhammad constantly emphasized in both the Koran and Hadith—such as enmity for and deceit of the infidel, and, when capable, perpetual jihad?

Even in the Islamic world this connection between visible indicators of Islamic piety and jihadi tendencies are well known. Back in 2011, when Islamists were dominating Egypt’s politics, secularist talk show host Amr Adib of Cairo Today mocked the then calls for a “million man beard” march with his trademark sarcasm: “This is a great endeavor! After all, a man with a beard can never be a thug, can never rape a woman in the street, can never set a church on fire, can never fight and quarrel, can never steal, and can never be dishonest!”

His sarcasm was not missed on his Egyptian viewership which knew quite well that it is precisely those Muslims who most closely follow the minutia of Muhammad—for example, by growing a beard—that are most prone to violence, deceit, and anti-infidel sentiments, all of which were also advocated by Islam’s prophet.

Speaking more seriously, Adib had added that this issue is not about growing a beard, but rather, “once you grow your beard, you give proof of your commitment and fealty to everything in Islam.”

Politically influential Muslim activists are pushing to reduce the FBI’s role in countering Islamic terrorism and are seeking greater federal reliance on hard-line orthodox Imams.

The White House’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program “did not produce the results a lot of us were hopeful … [and] kind of collapsed towards the end of last year,” complained Mohamed Elibiary, a Texas-based advocate who was appointed to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

“I don’t know where it is today … [but] it presents us with the opportunity to look at the question of [whether] it is right to house it within the FBI,” he said at an May 28 event in D.C. staged by the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

The controversial CVE program was boosted in 2011, when President Barack Obama directed the FBI to work with Muslim political and community groups to suppress jihadi attacks, which are dubbed as non-Islamic “violent extremism.”

But, said Elibiary, “we spun our wheels for the last two years [and] we never got the national CVE policy across all 56 [FBI field] offices.”

Instead, said panelists, the FBI has continued its traditional policy of investigating jihadis for subsequent trial and convictions.

In contrast, the Department of Homeland Security, Elibiary said, has done much good by trying to work with Islamic groups.

The CVE program has been slammed by critics for giving too large an intermediary role to small Islamic political groups such as MPAC, which portray themselves as representatives of American Muslims. The groups try to foster the growth of distinct Islamic communities.

The CVE training has also been criticized for obscuring the many orthodox Islamic strictures that spur Muslims’ violence against non-Muslims.

Elibiary’s new call for reduced policing of Islamic communities, such as Boston’s immigrant Muslims, was echoed by other speakers at the panel, which was hosted by the progressive New American Foundation in Washington D.C.

“Imams and counselors need to be given some leeway” by police, said Suhaib Webb, Imam of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center.

Webb’s cultural center is affiliated with the mosque attended by Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the ethnic Chechen Muslim who along with his brother Dzhokhar killed three Americans with two bombs at the Boston Marathon. Tsarnaev also killed a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer after Boston police broadcast his photo on TV. The police did not contact the main Boston mosque for help in identifying Tsarnaev’s image, which was captured by videos of the explosion and its aftermath.

Webb, who was disinvited from the state’s April 18 memorial service by Governor Deval Patrick, said he can persuade young men to stay away from violence. But “I need to be able to sit down with someone and not be subpoenaed or be called as a witness” in a later terrorism investigation, he said.

To succeed, government anti-terror agencies should keep their distance from such outreach to angry youth, he said. “We don’t need to be too close to each other, because that undermines our [Imams’] street credibility,” said Webb.

In fact, he added, his influence was recently reduced when he was labelled as a “moderate.” That “undermined my ability” to persuade youths, Webb said.

The greatest threat to the national security of the United States is not Al Qaeda terrorism, but rather the Islamic faith itself, especially now since Barack Obama seems intent on advancing Islamic interests in our nation over those of American citizens; all of us missed numerous warning signs over three decades leading up to the heinous attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11, however, through the lens of history and present day events, one cannot deny the definitive proof of the violent imperialism intrinsic to Islam. And, despite the number of times anyone asserts in clichéd terms that “not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslims,” the fact remains that America is today less secure than it was on what many Muslims refer to as “the Tuesday of God’s glory.”

Many people are often beguiled by Islamists’ explanations of terrorism. Harrison Akins, Ibn Khaldun Chair Research Fellow at the American University in DC, would have us believe the assertions of Akbar Ahmed, Chair of Islamic Studies-American Univ, that terrorism is mainly a product of tribal dynamics and codes and a fight for “their rights,” rather than anything emanating from the edicts of Islam. This sort of victimology dismisses the fact that supposedly “civilized and educated” Muslim doctors, lawyers and engineers have engaged in terrorism, the “intellectual elite” supported Iran’s Ayatollah Khomenei and U.S. and European educated Islamists/Muslim Brotherhood members have risen to power and the top positions within Egypt’s present day government. Then there is Remziya Suleyman.

Remziya Suleyman is the director of the Tennessee American Muslim Advisory Council, and since 2011 she has worked towards Sharia law in Tennessee as well as proselytizing and presenting Islam inside U.S. public schools. She states that she is “working for religious freedom for Muslims… even if everyone else’s religious and constitutional freedoms are abridged in the process.” Suleyman also involved Hamas affiliated CAIR in her protest at the Tennessee capitol against the anti-terrorism bill.

Although there are many current cases of attempted terrorist acts by islamofascists residing in the U.S., two older cases are more relevant in light of the recent focus on U.S. border security:

On July 28, 2004, custom officials in McAllen, Texas arrested Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed at the airport, when they noticed her South African passport lacked an official entry stamp for the United States. It was soon discovered that this Muslim woman had entered the U.S. illegally; she proved to be a terrorist courier operating between the Middle East mujahadeen and an Al Qaeda cell in New York, as she sneaked into the U.S. nearly 300 times before her arrest. Information from her interrogations led to the arrests of several Al Qaeda agents in Mexico.

Also in 2004, during a search for the terrorist Al Qaeda member, U.S. citizen and nuclear technician known as Adnan el-Shukrijumah, another key Al Qaeda operative, Sharif al-Masri, was arrested in Pakistan. Masri had close ties to al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s second in command, and during an interrogation he disclosed that Al Qaeda had made arrangements to smuggle tactical nuclear weapons from Mexico to the U.S. with the help of the Mara Savatrucha Latino street gang.

During the 1970s, India fought a fierce war with her Muslim citizens, until the regions known today as Pakistan and Bangladesh were won by the Muslims. Bangladesh, originally tied to Pakistan politically and under the same government, soon fought an internecine war for independence due to Islamic doctrinal differences. And now today, the Muslims currently living in India are attempting to claim the rest of India and impose Sharia law; the conquest never stops!

Just this year, the world has seen new Islamic generated conflicts, as Uighur Muslims in western China (near the Afghanistan border) have stirred in a move towards independence, the Islamic Maghreb and Taureg rebels temporarily held the northern half of Mali and the Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar have attacked the Buddhists. Although the following has occurred often over the centuries, on April 6, the Muslims in Egypt also once more felt compelled to mount an unprovoked attack on Egypt’s Coptic Christians.

On January 13, 2013, America was once again forced to watch Muslims mock our U.S. Constitution, as Mustafaa Carroll, Executive Director of CAIR/Dallas-Ft Worth area, stated at an Islamic rally in Austin, Texas: “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.” He also dismissed critics of Sharia law as being “anti-foreign.” But one should also note that numerous current and ex-FBI agents, such as Mike Rolf (‘Muslim Mafia’) and John Guandolo have referred to CAIR offices as “a turnstile for terrorists and their supporters.”

In February 2013, a Syrian born Arab-American woman and psychiatrist, Dr. Wafa Sultan wrote in part in ‘The Rutherford Reader': “I do not view Islam as a religion. Islam is a political doctrine, which imposes itself by force. Any doctrine whatsoever that calls to kill those who do not believe in it is not a religion.” This same view is held by Stephen Coughlin, Navy War College lecturer, Lt Colonel Matthew Dooley, Joint Forces Staff College, Shireen Burki (JFSC), General William G. Boykin (ex-Commander/US Special Forces), myself and many others across America.

A few years ago, Salman Rushdie gave a lecture on C-SPAN from New York. The complete essence of his message was that when a Muslim moves from the Middle East to any place else, say Shelbyville or Murfreesboro, Tennessee, he is not looking to take advantage of the American way of life to better himself. Rather, he sees himself as part of the advance guard to spread Islam to his new country, whether he arrives legally or illegally; it is long past time that we demand of our leaders the expulsion of all Muslims not holding U.S. citizenship!

Some of the world’s so-called “intellectuals” saw a seeming shift within the ummah/worldwide Islamic community, when The Islamic Society (operates Denmark’s largest mosque) and Minhaj ul Quran (Danish offshoot of a Pakistani anti-blasphemy group) denounced the failed assassination attempt on Lars Hedegaard, an anti-Islam polemicist, and they defended his right to speak freely; however, America and any nation that harbors Muslims should not take away too much hope from this anomaly, because, holistically, an easily estimated 400 million islamofascists across the globe still don’t mind burning or beheading people simply on the charge of blasphemy, adultery, insulting Mohammed or apostasy… and, three-fourths of the remainder stand back and allow it in tacit approval.

America needs a few extremists of Her own to grasp the mantle of truthful, credible leadership… men and women who exhibit various combinations of eloquence, strategic vision, patience, combat record and managerial skills. Remember Senator Barry Goldwater’s words delivered to the 1964 Republican National Convention: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” This is not to suggest we recruit our own murderous terrorists after the fashion of Mariam Farhat, Palestinian Legislative Council member and “Mother of Martyrs” (died March 17, 2013 in Gaza City), who encouraged three sons to die in suicide attacks against Israel and told her four year old grandson in 2004, “You will be a martyr one day.” It simply means we fight with every means available to save our nation and our freedom, not shrinking from combat in any arena that may prove necessary, as we hope for the emergence of a leader the caliber of Washington, Jefferson and Reagan… a leader who understands that while there may be shades of opinion among Muslims, as a totalitarian system of thought Islam has remained unchanged for 1200 years, and there is no such thing as a peaceful, tolerant, coexistent and “moderate” Islam”!

I am concerned CAIR’s hateful supremacist rhetoric could lead to possible bias incidents inciting “practicing Muslims” to act in a lawless manner against non-Muslims.

Above the Law of the Land

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth branch of the Council On American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Mustafa Carroll’s incendiary quote was meant to incite lawless action from his target audience of “practicing Muslims.”

We urge Americans to speak out against this latest form of irrational anti-Americanism, hate mongering, incitement, and for CAIR to publicly reaffirm respect for the law of the land and tolerance for all.

Overview

This article will show how CAIR Dallas-Fort Worth executive director Mustafa Carroll’s quote is subversive and in violation of their coveted 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax exempt status and is illegal under United States Code. CAIR has shown a pattern of similar statements from Omar Ahmad and Ibrahim Hooper advocating for Rebellion or Insurrection under United States Code.

Mustafa Carroll is 100% Right

Mr. Carroll made his subversive “…we are above the law of the land” call to action at the Texas Muslim Capitol Day on January 31, 2013. According to Islamic doctrine and theology Mustafa Carroll is 100 percent in accordance with Islamic Law. Islamic Law teaches the Qur’an is the exact word of Allah down to the last letter and supersedes all man made laws including our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Mr. Carroll should be applauded for his honesty and then harshly punished for his subversive speech against the United States of America.

Mustafa Carroll is the Executive Director of a nationally recognized 501(c)(3) Civil Rights Organization so his words spoken in public carry considerable weight, especially when spoken on the steps of Texas State Capitol where man made laws are written and enacted.

Accurate Image of Islam in America

CAIR-TX, DFW Chapter website says it, “is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, tax-deductible grassroots advocacy and civil right organization. CAIR was established to promote a accurate image of Islam and Muslims in America. We believe that misrepresentations of Islam today are most often the result of ignorance on the part of non-Muslims and reluctance on the part of Muslims to clearly articulate our beliefs…we strive to maintain the highest ethical standards in all of our endeavors. In our work towards portraying an accurate image of Islam in America…“

John Griffing wrote a good article documenting the serial lawlessness and arrests of CAIR principles over the years plus a live uncut video of Mustafa Carroll and others on the steps of Texas State Capitol.

I believe Mustafa Carroll chose his words carefully and articulated his view of an “accurate image of Islam in America”, when he stated, “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.” Mr. Carroll believes he is above the law and better than everyone else.
Read more: Family Security Matters

More than a decade after the deadliest attack on U.S. soil, the U.S. administration seems no closer to identifying let alone repelling Islamist terrorists in the homeland. The 9/11 committee used the term “failure of imagination” to explain why the U.S. government was unable to prevent the catastrophic events of that day.[1] But although the enemy was identified at that time, the Federal government and one of its most important branches, the FBI, have adopted a policy of scrubbing Islamism from public consciousness[2]though since bin Laden’s 2011 demise, “at least nine publicly known Islamist-inspired terror plots against the United States have been foiled, bringing the total number of foiled plots as of April 2012, to 50.”[3]

In November 2009, U.S. Army major Nidal Hasan (right) gunned down thirteen of his fellow servicemen at Fort Hood, Texas. Despite clear links establishing his connection to radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (left), the subsequent Webster report spoke only vaguely about generic “violent radicalization” while president Obama referred to the jihadist massacre as “workplace violence.”

The Obama administration’s response to the 2009 Fort Hood terror attack by U.S. Army major Nidal Hasan offers a vivid illustration of this practice. In August 2012, an independent commission charged with reviewing the FBI’s failure to prevent the attack issued its report, recommending eighteen changes in policies and operations. However, the commission, headed by Judge William H. Webster, upheld the government’s policy of excluding Islamism from the findings, concluding that despite the intelligence failure, FBI personnel had faithfully followed protocols and procedure, and there occurred “no misconduct that would warrant administrative or disciplinary action.”[4]

There appeared to be little appetite for finding the attack’s root causes and its failed detection. Nor was corrective action an apparent priority. Instead, the directive focused on exploring “whether there are other policy or procedural steps the FBI should consider … while still respecting privacy and civil-liberty interests” and “whether any administrative action should be taken against any employee.”[5]

Faulty Protocols

The report scrupulously covers the operational missteps and errors in the FBI’s handling of the Hasan attack, detailing the substandard hardware, antiquated search tools, and inferior communications databases. Failure was exacerbated by lack of procedural clarity between the FBI’s Washington Field Office, the San Diego Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the Department of Defense, all of which dropped leads and omitted information. It is a frightening read, detailing a course of events within the intelligence communities that should never have occurred post-9/11.

The Webster report ought to have detailed what procedures resulted in Hasan not being flagged as a danger. Instead, it proposed general policy guidelines, some rather obvious and some further expanding chain of command. Of the eighteen recommendations, seven reference policy, five recommend technology and software improvements, and four recommend increasing compliance with the numerous bureaus protecting privacy and civil liberties. Only one proposal suggests operational changes, advising the training of Terrorism Task Force officers on FBI databases. The final recommendation concludes that no administrative or disciplinary action be taken.

Meanwhile, an earlier congressional investigation led by senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, concludedthat the FBI “collectively had sufficient information necessary to have detected Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to understand and to act on it.”[6] Yet the Webster commission barely mentions Islam in the body of the report.

The underlying justification for omitting this factor is encountered in Part 1, Factual Findings: “The FBI’s report on terrorist acts in the U.S. … identified 318 events … and only 7% of those events were attributed to Islamic extremists.”[7] Statistics such as these are easily manipulated at the D.C.-based Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) site by selecting specific criteria. Moreover, the Webster report undermines this fact when it lists the successes of the FBI’s terrorism task forces: Of the sixteen examples of major terrorist plots foiled, all were planned by Muslims.[8]

One might also look to the selection of the committee members assigned to investigate an Islamist-inspired terror attack on the U.S. military for further explanation of the omission. None of the investigators and attorneys chosen were experts in Islamist extremism: Douglas Winter is an IT specialist; Adrian Steele, an antitrust and regulatory law expert; Russel Bruemmer, a financial institutions professional; Kenneth Wainstein, an expert in corporate internal investigations and civil and criminal enforcement; and William Baker is a criminal and counterterrorism specialist, and was the only member with a modicum of expertise in Islamism. The commission also consulted with “public interest groups that promote and protect civil liberties and privacy interests.” In fact, the only exhibit appended to the report was a lengthy treatise from the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that has distinguished itself by frequently contesting counterterrorism measures proposed by the government since 9/11 as an infringement on civil rights.

Thus the word “Islamic” is mentioned a mere thirty times in the 173-page report. Most instances have no significance, including eight referring to proper names while seven refer to “radical Islamic cleric” Anwar al-Awlaki, Hasan’s jihadist mentor. Almost half the mentions, ironically, come from Hasan’s own e-mail correspondence. The Webster report wascriticized by senators Lieberman and Collins who worried the “report fails to address the specific cause for the Fort Hood attack, which is violent Islamist extremism.”[9]

The sad truth is that the bulk of the blame for this sorry state must be assigned to guidelines that handicapped agents in identifying Islamist threats. The report holds no agent accountable for failing to follow FBI protocols since the chain of command and protocol is dictated to the FBI by the appointed attorney general. Implementing the Webster commission’s recommendations cannot prevent a similar, future attack while there is a concerted effort coming from the Attorney General’s office—and ultimately the White House—to obfuscate the main motivation, Islamism.

People already can be blocked from naturalization for affiliating with totalitarian groups, or engaging in or advocating violence to overthrow the U.S. government. The report argues that the totalitarian prohibition can apply to adherents of radical Islam.

“Why totalitarianism? Because under radical strains of Islam, such as Salafism, it is impossible to reconcile separation of church and state,” the report says. “All civil authority bows to the wisdom of religious clerics in a theocracy. The best existing example (if one can use that descriptor loosely) of such a theocracy in action is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The worst example in recent memory is the Taliban when it ruled Afghanistan. Can one doubt that both examples point clearly to a totalitarian form of government in which no form of peaceful dissension or religious liberty is tolerated? In fact, dissension and religious differences are dealt with brutally.”

Under the proposal, someone could be barred from becoming a citizen if he or she is a follower of radical Islam to the extent that Islam and sharia law should supersede secular law and liberty in the United States. And citizenship can be stripped if it later is determined the person failed to disclose those beliefs.

The report describes the two existingprovisions for denaturalizing citizens under such circumstances. But there has been little focus or interest among federal authorities to aggressively pursue such cases, even when the offenders have been convicted of serious national security crimes.

The CIS report identifies 51 cases since 2003 involving naturalized citizens who were charged with and/or convicted of national security related violations. Of them, 34 (66 percent) were from Islamic countries or otherwise identified as being involved in an Islamist security threat violation case.

Denaturalized people revert to their prior immigration status, usually a permanent resident alien. But resident aliens convicted of certain crimes, particularly national security crimes, are subject to deportation. Even absent a criminal conviction, permanent residents can be deported if they obtained that status through fraud or misrepresentation.

This CIS report raises noteworthy issues that have lingered for nearly a decade. And while federal authorities appear to be lethargic in the pursuit of even national security denaturalization cases, there have been some successes such as Fawaz Damra and Abdurahman M. Alamoudi. Even the notorious criminal case against Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operative Sami Al-Arian began as a naturalization fraud investigation.

But a handful of victories in a sea of ignored cases is not really success. There is much room for improvement and, ironically, improvement may not even require legislative change but no more than shift in focus and willingness by executive branch agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting the violations. This matter appears ripe for congressional inquiry. The CIS report has opened that door.

On May 12, 2011 a US Army “Red Team” issued an unclassified report which purported to explain the burgeoning rash of murderous attacks (which have since escalated even further, still) by Afghan National Army (ANA) members on US and other NATO troops.

Although the report is dominated by apologetic, cultural relativist drivel which attempts, in vain, to explain away these acts of murder committed against the US and NATO troops by their by ANA “allies,” it also includes a crudely buried, sub rosa truthful narrative.

This latter discussion is all that matters, and bears full, clear exposure—particularly in light of the morally cretinous excuse for the most recent spate of such killings of US troops. Specifically, General Allen in an obscene pronouncement for which he should be forced to resign, maintained that Ramadan fasting, combined with operational tempo during the summer heat, were the drivers of these most recent killings of his own troops by Muslim ANA soldiers.

Based upon extensive interviews, US and NATO troops, as the report notes, were both disgusted with, and highly (and justifiably) suspicious of, the Islamically-sanctioned practices and behaviors of their Afghan military allies, and Afghan civilians.

[Specific elaborations on Afghan Muslim treatment of dogs, women, and children; pp. 44-45] Many US soldiers were appalled by the rampant torture of dogs and puppies they witnessed while being based with ANSF units. Many ANSF members are prone to inflicting abuse onto stray dogs they bring to the base for “entertainment” purposes. Other ANSF members, while not condoning the torture, fail to see any importance in such behaviors given the standing of dogs in Islam. Dogs are seen as vermin and many ANSF members find it inexplicable that anyone could be concerned about such “trivial matters,” and deeply resent any interference…This animal abuse is a substantial psychological stressor for many US soldiers and has been the cause of many serious social altercations with ANSF members…US soldiers reported that they had observed many cases of child abuse and neglect that infuriated them and alienated them from the civilian populace. They made it very clear that they wanted nothing to do with people who treat children so cruelly. Although not reported by the US soldiers who participated in this study. There have been numerous accounts of Canadian troops in Kandahar complaining about the rampant sexual abuse of children they have witnessed ANSF personnel commit, including the cultural practice of bacha bazi, as well as the raping and sodomizing of little boys…Similarly, US soldiers…mentioned the poor treatment and virtual slavery of Women in Afghan society, and how they found such practices repugnant. They found it unpalatable to befriend other men who had such primitive beliefs; the cultural gulf was too wide. They were repulsed by the abuse and neglect they observed in how children are treated in Afghan society. US soldiers largely reported that they did not care for Afghan civilians due to these factors as well as their suspected sympathies for the insurgents.

But the most salient point—blatantly ignored throughout the feckless conduct of our mission in Afghanistan, till now, and exemplified, glaringly, by General Allen’s heinous remarks—was inserted (as item 40), non-sequitur, amongst 58 other comparatively trivial recommendations.

[p. 50] Better educate US soldiers in the central tenets of Islam as interpreted and practiced in Afghanistan. Ensure that this instruction is not a sanitized, politically correct training package, but rather includes an objective and comprehensive assessment of the totalitarian nature of the extreme theology practiced among Afghans.

As the Pentagon’s only serious and honest (and of course now former) expert on Islamic Law, Major Stephen Coughlin observed in 2007:

If the Enemy in the War on Terror (WOT) states that he fights jihad in furtherance of Islamic causes that includes the imposition of Shari’a law and the re-establishment of the Caliphate; And Islamic law on jihad exists and is available in English; Then Professionals with WOT responsibilities have an affirmative, personal, professional duty to know the enemy that includes ALL the knowable facts associated with the law of jihad.

And Coughlin, a well-trained lawyer, further argued that such understanding by our military leaders is obligatory if they are to uphold their essential commission:

This is the Professional Standard.

The Red Team report’s acknowledgement, now matter how grudging, of the essential role of Islamic totalitarianism in the ANA’s murderous actions against US and NATO troops, suggests our military leadership’s current dereliction of duty is even more egregious at present than when Major Coughlin shared his observations in 2007.

Earlier this month author and former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy gave a terrific, informative, and comprehensive address at The Center for Security Policy at the National Press Club. It was principally an answer and a rebuttal to the criticisms of a group of five House representatives who called for a multi-agency investigation into the backgrounds of numerous Muslims now employed in various capacities in those agencies. One of those letters went to deputy inspector general of the State Department, and one of the persons named in the letter was Huma Abedin, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

McCarthy was the point man in the prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik,” over the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He is a Republican conservative with a libertarian bent who writes for National Review.

Abedin, it seems, has very close family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist supremacist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the conquest of the United States (if not its destruction, as well). The Mainstream Media and its allies on the Left immediately charged Michele Bachmann, representative from Minnesota, with alleging that Abedin is an operative or spy for the Brotherhood. McCarthy and others have countered with the facts: that Bachmann, based on knowledge that Abedin especially has had family connections with the Brotherhood, suggested that perhaps she had not been as thoroughly vetted as a possible security risk. Bachmann and her colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee were requesting an investigation of the vetting of Abedin and other individuals. And nothing more.

The ensuing attack on Bachmann gave Senator John McCain of Arizona a chance to grandstand in Congress in Abedin’s defense. Abedin and McCain, apparently, are friends. However, he committed the same error as the mainstream media made, and interpreted Bachmann’s request for an investigation as an allegation of “guilt by association.”

McCarthy not only deflated such a charge in his Center for Security Policy speech, but provided ample evidence that the Brotherhood has indeed infiltrated the highest ranks of government for the purpose of influencing American foreign policy. During his speech, he said he could not now say how many Muslims were in positions of influence or even had access to security-sensitive documents.
However, there was a reservation in McCarthy’s depiction of the Islamic peril. That reservation compromises and qualifies everything else he had to say. These are the troubling paragraphs. The non-bolded Italics are mine:

Now, let me be clear about what I said and what I didn’t say. I said Islamist influences, I did not say Muslims. I don’t know how many Muslims work in the U.S. government, but I feel pretty safe saying there are thousands. As a federal prosecutor on terrorism cases, I had the privilege of working with several of them. These were patriotic American Muslims, and a number of Muslims who may not be Americans but who have embraced America and the West. Without them, we could not have infiltrated jihadist cells in New York and stopped terrorists from killing thousands of people. Without them, we could not have translated, understood and processed our evidence so it could be presented to a jury as a compelling narrative. Pro-American Muslims serve honorably in government, in our military, in our intelligence services, and in our major institutions. We are lucky to have them because they have embraced the culture of individual liberty that is the beating heart of Western civilization. They have accepted the premise of our society that everyone has a right to freedom of conscience and equality before the law. They have accepted our foundational principle that free people are at liberty to make law for themselves, irrespective of the rules of any belief system or ideology. They construe Islam’s spiritual elements and its laws as a matter of private conscience, not as a mandatory framework for society. (Italics mine.) Those Muslims are not Islamists.

What is troubling is that this is a common sentiment among virtually all well-read, knowledgeable, and actively out-spoken anti- and counter-jihadist writers and observers. The only Muslims I would completely trust with my life would be apostates: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, and a handful of others. These individuals have repudiated Islam in its entirety, discarded it as moral code, and warned that there can be no such thing as a moderate Islam. They have acknowledged that there is no such thing as a “moderate,” peace-loving Muslim, either, that there is no halfway point between obeying Allah’s commands and the laws of man-made governments, which Allah decreed, through Mohammad, were an “abomination.”

Parenthetically, the concept of a conscience is strictly religious in nature, by which one’s explicitly held moral principles are at variance with the more pragmatic or “practical” actions one must take to pursue one’s ends. As such a dichotomy, a conscience serves more as a leash rather than as a guide to moral action.

Let us for the moment take McCarthy’s statement as true – that these “patriotic” Muslims are not security risks and who sincerely do not wish harm on the United States – and pose some important questions:

Which parts of the Islamic doctrine do “moderate,” peace-loving, “patriotic” Muslims reject, or object to, or claim have been misinterpreted by “extremists” and “radicals”? To my knowledge, this question has never been answered, neither by any “moderate” Muslims, nor by any non-Muslims such as Andrew McCarthy or Robert Spencer or Daniel Pipes. It would be interesting to know which parts of that doctrine do not call for death, destruction, enslavement or conquest – that is, the later, abrogating Koranic verses.

And if one could identify those parts, and segregate them from the belligerent, violent parts, could the remainder be justly called “Islamic”? Could a Muslim who adhered to those non-violent parts, and eschewed the violent ones, still be called a “true Muslim”? Would he be any kind of “Muslim”? Would “conservative” or “extremist” Muslims regard him as one, or label him a slacker, or an apostate?

If one has serious reservations about one’s beliefs, yet steadfastly holds onto them in the face of the choices of rejecting them, compromising them, or of being consistent with them, is this a matter of faith, or of a congenital psychological or epistemological disorder? If a private conscience is a personal matter, characterized by a belief in an all-knowing, omnipotent deity who commands one to be moral (without any demonstrable, perception-based, reality-grounded proofs), where would one’s strongest loyalty lay? With the belief, or with secular law? In a crisis, would a Muslim’s personal ‘belief system” trump his purported belief in the “foundational principle that free people are at liberty to make law for themselves”?

Islam’s basic tenets reject any kind of individualism. Islam is inherently hostile to such concepts of individualism and political liberty. Islamic ideology seeks to extinguish those things. To wit, as cited in the Journal Huma Abedin worked on for twelve years:

The Western habit of reducing religion to the function of a residual force, separating it from the state and relegating it to personal and individual affairs, places a deep gulf between the West and other traditions, especially the Islamic. (p. 6) The Islamic world sees the West as arrogant, materialistic, repressive, brutal, and decadent with a lack of human moral values. The domains of Islam perceive Western culture as threatening because of its materialism, imperialism and its championing of unfettered individualism at the expense of the common social good. These hallmarks of Western culture are seen as the source of all troubles. (p. 9) Muslim intellectuals believe that Western modernity is based on a metaphysical foundation of immanence that denies transcendence. Sayyid Husayn Nasr describes, “The embodiment of the Divine Will, as a transcendent reality which is eternal and immutable, as a model by which the perfections and shortcomings of human society and the conduct of the individual are judged….” Sayyid QuÏb described it [modern Islam] as “a disastrous combination of avid materialism and egoistic individualism.” (p. 9) The war that has been declared against Western modernity now seeks a new modernity, and, unlike Western modernity, it is not based on a revolution of rising expectations and infinite progress, but, rather, on the idea of a human mind at peace with itself, committed to the sanctity of man and of nature. The search for this new modernity in the Islamic world gives a high priority to the ideal of justice and the balancing of individual human rights with the rights of the human community as a whole. (p. 11) The most common notion of freedom in the West today is to do, be or say whatever one wishes without intervention. A substantial range of actions by individuals or groups cannot be questioned. But in the Islamic notion of freedom, an individual’s or group’s freedom is restricted if fellow human beings complain of sentimental or sensual feelings as a result of those actions. (p. 11)

All Italics are mine. Need I point out the inherent hostility of Islam to individualism? Islam requires the unquestioning submission of the individual to Islamic authority.

All non-Islamist or non-supremacist Muslims are faced with such a contradiction and the attending problematic conflict of conscience. If they refuse or are unable to question their faith, what then? If one could demonstrate to them that their faith is incompatible with their purported patriotism and loyalty, what would they do about it? Repudiate Islam, or continue to profess double and irreconcilable commitments?

Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and suspense novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all available on Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other publications. He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security Matters, Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.

Current Congressman and former Army Lt. Col Allen West appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to discuss what he described as “stealth jihad” within United States institutions. Rattling off examples and historical data, West accused organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood of trying to subvert practically every American institution under the sun, from the military to churches to the United States government. Moreover, West argued, the reality that it was a predominately Muslim threat was being ignored on both sides of the aisle because of political correctness. Or, as West put it, a “Tolerance that will lead to our cultural suicide.”